ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sotah 43
SOTAH 43 - Sponsored by Martin Fogel of California, for a Refu'ah Shelemah
for Hendel bas Chava, and Hava Rivkah bas Hendel.
(a) In the war against Midyan, the Torah writes "va'Yishlach Osam Moshe
ve'es Pinchas ... ". Pinchas participated in the capacity of -Mashu'ach
(b) "Osam" refers to - the Sanhedrin (who did not usually go to war).
(c) The "K'lei ha'Kodesh" comprised - the Aron and the Luchos.
(d) The two silver trumpets also accompanied them into battle (see Rashash)?
(a) Pinchas was chosen as Mashu'ach Milchamah - in order to avenge the sale
of his ancestor Yosef, whom the Midyanim sold to Egypt.
(b) Elazar, Pinchas father, married a daughter of Putiel. Even though Putiel
refers to Yisro, it can also refer to Yosef - because in fact, Elazar
married a granddaughter of Yisro, one of whose parents was a descendant of
Yisro, the other, a descendant of Yosef (see d 2.).
(c) We prove this from the Lashon "mi'Benos *Putiel*" - written with an
extra 'Yud', suggesting that "Putiel" has two implications.
(d) The name Putiel (by way of acronym) hints to ...
1. ... Yosef - who struggled ('she'Pitpat') with his Yeitzer-ha'Ra.
2. ... Yisro - because the tribes were mocking Pinchas saying 'Have you seen
this 'ben Puti', whose mother's father fattened calves for idolatry; and he
has the gall to slay a prince (Zimri - alias Sh'lumiel ben Tzurishaday) in
(a) When, prior to the battle, the officers would announce that whoever had
built a house should return from the battlefront, this was not confined to
someone who had ...
1. ... built a *house* - but extended to a storehouse or a stable.
(b) Similarly, when they announced that, whoever had planted a vineyard
should return, this was not confined to someone who had ...
2. ... *built* a house - but extended to someone who had purchased,
inherited or received a gift of a house.
1. ... planted *a vineyard* - but extended to any collection of fruit-trees.
(c) To return from the battlefront, a soldier had to have planted ... five
trees - because that is what constitutes a vineyard.
2. ... *planted* a vineyard - but extended to replanting the end of an
attached branch, grafting, purchasing or inheriting trees.
(d) This applies - even if each of the five trees produces a different
species of fruit.
(a) When they referred to someone who had betrothed a girl but not yet
married her, they were not referring specifically to a Besulah - but even to
a widow or to a Shomeres Yavam.
(b) A soldier would have to return from the battlefront when his brother
fell - if he left no children, necessitating the Mitzvah of Yibum.
(c) After being ordered to leave the front lines - the above soldiers would
join the supply units and repair the roads.
(d) When the Pasuk writes "Mi ha'Ish ... *ve'Lo Chilelo*" - it means that
the owner of the vineyard had not yet taken the fruit of the fourth year to
Yerushalayim or the value of the fruits (after redeeming).
(a) A soldier who built a gate-house, sun-porch or stoep; a soldier who
planted four fruit-trees or even five non fruit-bearing trees; a soldier who
betrothed his divorcee, or who is betrothed to a woman who is forbidden to
him with a La'av - does not respond to the officers' announcement, but
remains at the battlefront.
(b) When Rebbi Yehudah says 'Af ha'Boneh Bayis al Mechono Lo Hayah Chozer' -
he means someone who rebuilt his house to the same specifications as the
(c) According to Rebbi Eliezer, a soldier who had built a new brick house in
Sharon and had not yet consecrated it did not return from the battlefront -
because, due to the poor quality of the earth from which the bricks were
constructed) the house would not last (but had to be demolished and rebuilt
twice every seven years).
(d) A soldier who had built a new house and had just consecrated it, one who
had planted a vineyard and had already either eaten the fruit of the fourth
year in Yerushalayim or redeemed it, and one who was just married (and are
all still within the year) - do not even need to take the trouble to join
the troops in the first place.
(a) Our Mishnah cited the Pasuk "ve'Dibru ha'Shotrim es ha'Am Leimor 'Mi
ha'Ish Asher Banah Bayis ... ". We infer from the Pasuk "*ve'Yasfu*
ha'Shotrim .. " however - that it is only from that point on (from "Mi
ha'Ish ha'Yarei ve'Rach ha'Leivav ... ") that the officers actually announce
(b) So we interpret the previous Pasuk - to mean that the officers announce
aloud what the Mashu'ach Milchamah has stated quietly (much like a
(c) Abaye concludes 'mi've'Nigash ve'Ad ve'Dibru Kohen Medaber ve'Kohen
Mashmi'a; mi've'Dibru Ad ve'Yasfu, Kohen Medaber ve'Shoter Mashmi'a;
mi've'Yasfu ve'Eilach Shoter Medaber ve'Shoter Mashmi'a'. When he says ...
1. ... 'mi've'Nigash ve'Ad ve'Dibru Kohen Medaber ve'Kohen Mashmi'a' - he is
referring to the first announcement of the Mashu'ach Milchamah (the words of
encouragement that he gave them before crossing the border, as we discussed
on the previous Daf).
(d) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
2. ... 'mi've'Dibru Ad ve'Yasfu, Kohen Medaber ve'Shoter Mashmi'a' - he is
referring to the first three 'Mi ha'Ish ... " (regarding a house, a vineyard
and a wife).
3. ... 'mi've'Yasfu ve'Eilach Shoter Medaber ve'Shoter Mashmi'a' - he is
referring to the last "Mi ha'Ish ... " ("ha'Yarei ve'Rach ha'Leivav").
1. ... "Mi *ha'Ish* Asher Banah Bayis" - that the same applies to someone
who purchased, inherited or received a gift of a house.
2. ... "Mi ha'Ish *Asher Banah* Bayis" - that it also extends to someone who
purchased a store-house or a stable.
3. ... "Bayis" - that it must nevertheless be considered a house of sorts,
to preclude a gate-house, sun-porch or stoep.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the word "Bayis" - that it is only
a soldier who built a *house* who is sent from the front line, but none of
the other cases listed above.
(b) The Tana learns from the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Lo Chanacho"
(and not "ve'Lo Chanach") - that he is not sent back for stolen house.
(c) We refute the proof that this Tana cannot hold like Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili, who holds that "ve'Rach ha'Leivav" refers to soldiers who are
afraid of their sins (and who would go home anyway is they stole) - by
establishing the Pasuk (of "ve'Lo Chanacho") when he did Teshuvah and paid
(d) The thief differs from a regular purchaser (whom we included earlier) -
inasmuch as the house came into his possession by way of Isur.
(a) "u'Mi ha'Ish Asher Nata Kerem ve'Lo Chanacho ... ". The Tana of the
Beraisa learns from ...
1. ... "u'Mi ha'Ish" - that the same applies to someone who purchased,
inherited or received a gift of a vineyard.
(b) This is the opinion of the Tana Kama. Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns
from "Kerem" - that the Din is confined to someone who planted a vineyard,
but not to any other tree.
2. ... "Asher Nata" - that it also extends to other fruit-trees.
3. ... "Kerem" - that it does not apply to four fruit-trees or to five
4. ... "ve'Lo Chile*lo*" (rather than "ve'Lo Chilel") - that it does not
apply to someone who re-planted the end of an attached branch or grafted a
(c) We reconcile the above D'rashah of "ve'Lo Chile*lo*" with the Tana of
our Mishnah, who includes someone who replanted the end of attached branches
of a vine or who grafted his vineyard - by establishing the former in the
case of a forbidden graft (i.e. two different species), and the latter, by
one that is permitted.
(d) What constitutes a permissible grafting is - grafting a branch of tree
into a tree of the same species.
(a) If both the tree and the branch in the previous case, are young, then
the soldier will be obligated to return from the battlefront anyway. The
problem with establishing it by a young branch in an old tree is the
statement of Rebbi Avahu - that a young branch grafted into an old tree
becomes Bateil, and is no longer subject to Orlah and Neta Reva'i.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah manages to establish it even by a young branch grafted
into a young tree - when he planted the first tree (not for eating purposes,
but) in order to block a gap in the fence or for firewood (which the Mishnah
in Orlah exempts from Orlah).
(c) Even though a young branch grafted into an old tree becomes Bateil, a
young branch in a young tree does not - because although he designated the
young tree for the above-mentioned purposes, he is able to change his mind,
in which case, the tree will become subject to Orlah (which is not the case
by an old tree) because a tree is initially grown for its fruit (the source
of the previous Halachah).
(d) We prove from the case in the Mishnah in Orlah of a tree that grew by
itself, which is subject to Orlah - that a fruit-tree is generally planted
for its fruit.
(a) Rav Papa extrapolates from the fact that we did not resolve our previous
problem (regarding grafting a young branch in a young tree) when they
belonged to two different owners, each of whom must now return for his part
of the tree - that partners of a house or a vineyard do not return from the
When Rav Dimi arrived from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan, who
establishes the Beraisa which precludes someone who grafted a tree from
"ve'Lo Chilelo" like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - who just precluded all
other fruit-trees from "Kerem", and he is the Tana who now precludes (from
the word "Nata" - though this is not the source quoted by the Tana of the
Beraisa) all grafted trees or replanted branches that are still attached,
even if they are permitted, (whereas the Tana of our Mishnah agrees with the
Tana Kama of the Beraisa, which includes them).
(b) This is different than one of five brothers who dies, leaving four
Yevamin, all of whom return from the battlefront - because there, the
Yevamah is potentially the wife of each one.
(c) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak resolves the problem (regarding grafting a
young branch in a young tree) by establishing our Mishnah which permits him
to return from the battlefront in the case of someone who grafted the branch
of a tree in a vegetable - for which he would not have had to return from
the battlefront, because vegetables are not subject to Orlah.
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Yehudah ben Gamda permits
grafting the branch of a tree in a vegetable. The Chachamim forbid it.
(a) Rav Dimi quoting Rebbi Yochanan citing Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov rules
that low vines that will never grow to a height of more than a Tefach -
remain Chayav because of Orlah throughout their lifespan.
(b) This Din is confined to a vineyard consisting of four trees with a fifth
one protruding like a tail (a minimum size vineyard), which is not so well
known, and which people will therefore believe to be less than four years
old - but such trees in a full size vineyard, which everyone knows is more
than four years old, are permitted.
(c) When, quoting the same partnership, he said 'Meis Tofes Arba Amos
li'Keri'as Sh'ma' - he meant that one is forbidden to recite the Sh'ma
within four Amos of a dead person (because of "Lo'eg le'Rosh", mocking the
dead, who are unable to perform Mitzvos).
(d) We reject the statement of Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting
Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov, forbidding a brother to marry a step-sister who
grew up among the brothers (because people assume her to be their sister) -
because, in fact, people tend to know that she is only a step-sister.
(a) Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov
ruled that a poor man who collected a lot of Leket, Shikchah or Pe'ah and
heaped it into a pile - is Chayav mi'de'Rabbanan to separate Ma'asros from
(b) Ula restricts this Halachah to where the poor man piled up the Leket in
the field, since no-one knows under what circumstances he piled it up - but
not when he piled it up in the city, where everyone saw him bringing in his
Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah in dribs and drabs, and consequently know what it
(c) And Rebbi Yitzchak Amar Rebbi Yochanan quoting Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov
said that a low vine of less than a Tefach which mixes with seeds - does not
forbid the seeds because of Kil'ayim. This is because all species of seeds
that mix with a vine (with the exception of kanvas and Luf (a sort of
onion), are only Asur mi'de'Rabbanan, and Chazal did not decree in the case
of such an insignificant vineyard.
(d) He confines this leniency to a small vineyard of five vines (as we
explained above). It does not apply to a large vineyard - where Chazal did
decree on account of its significance.